The saga of New Jersey’s so-called “carry-killer” Bruen response law has been playing out for months. Previously we’ve reported on the two challenges to New Jersey’s law that was enacted in December, which seriously limits the right to carry in the Garden State. Formerly, there were two temporary restraining orders and a preliminary injunction in the Federal Court for the District of New Jersey. On an emergency appeal to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, the state of New Jersey managed to secure a partial stay of the injunction, allowing some provisions of the law to be enforced.
Judge Marie Bumb for the Federal Court administratively terminated the case as the appeals are to be heard in the Circuit Court. While the litigation continued, provisions of the law concerning training and qualification requirements for carry permit applicants were released, those standards are pretty high, and the state is about to get sued yet again.
The new training mandate was supposed to be released on July 1st, but the New Jersey State Police didn’t get the new standards out until July 17th. The standards, which are being labeled as “interim,” are basically the same qualifications that have been in place for retired police officers for years to get and maintain their permits to carry. It’s hard to tell if the NJSP is being incompetent, lazy or malicious in this action, because the bar is set pretty high for non-peace officers to qualify to get their permits.
The 50-round course of fire requires applicants to shoot out as far as 25 yards at an FBI “Q” target and maintain an 80% accuracy standard. There are different distances, stages, and configurations requirements for applicants to meet Drawing from a holster is one thing, but requiring a timed exercise, with time limits as low as three seconds for some of the exercises, is beyond excessive for the general public. And why are applicants required to kneel while shooting?
Training and qualifications are important, but compulsory training that requires everyday citizens to have a level of expertise that most veteran police officers have trouble meeting goes beyond what’s described as reasonable in the Bruen opinion. The concept of required training as a whole, in my opinion, is unconstitutional, and all of it fails to meet the burden of being consistent with what was the practice at the time of the founding.
The other issue with the onerous training mandate is that the law forces current permit holders to re-qualify by October 1st. And no standards have been issued yet for to permit holders. Do they re-qualify and take their documentation to their issuing authority? Do they send that into the state? Is there going to be a portal in the newly-instituted electronic system? Should they send a carrier pigeon to deliver it to the State Police headquarters?
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, one of the litigants in one of the suits challenging the law, reacted to the new training mandate by requesting that Judge Marie Bumb reopen the case on the federal level. Within an hour of ANJRPC’s request, Bumb did just that, and we can expect some filings in the near future.
What’s the timeline going to look like? That isn’t clear, but hopefully a request for a temporary restraining order for this portion of the law will be submitted soon, and subsequent to that, we have to remain hopeful the TRO will be granted.
The combined cases Siegel v. Platkin and Koons v. Platkin are scheduled to be heard in the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on October 25. Whether or not all elements of the cases are going to be litigated, or just the matter of what’s been preliminarily enjoined and subsequently stayed, remains to be seen But for certain, none of the organizations involved in these two cases are going to allow the Garden State to go unchallenged on the training requirements and other yet-to-be challenged elements of the law.
In their desperation to make it impossible to legally carry a firearm after the Bruen decision, New Jersey might be have gone too far, destroying it all for the remaining civil liberty “hold-out” states. That’s what happens when totalitarian regimes desperately fight to stay in complete control.
At the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, well regulated meant well trained.
Yes. However the prefatory of the 2nd Amendment isn’t binding nor a prerequisite on the operative.
Most also liked eating, good shooting equals good eating, so why would they need to be well trained? Alive should do.
Training is no guarantee that any person will do the right thing or be safe all the time. People have been shooting for decades way before all this talk about mandatory training existed and there is no evidence of gross negligence by the multitudes of gun owners.
If there was a major problem relative to training, we would have known about it a long long time ago. For the record, I am not against training and there is no excuse for getting some form of training, e.g. here is a link to free online 24/7 training:
https://www.learningsciencescorp.com/coursedemos/lsp/firearms/
Okay, “A well-regulated (trained) militia, being necessary for the security of a free state. Could that not be interpreted to mean a portion of the whole gun owning population would necessarily have to be trained to a degree of competency required to carry out group-based military like operations (act as a team)… Still does not conclude that the “entire” gun owning population would necessarily require “training”… Very few people grew up back then without coming into some contact and gaining a minimal level of competency with a firearm simply because it was a necessary tool for survival…
“Very few people grew up back then without coming into some contact and gaining a minimal level of competency with a firearm simply because it was a necessary tool for survival…”
Egg-zactly. (Thanks, Haz.)
All the better reason for high school kids to get that kind of training the same way they get driver’s ed training. On a range in the school’s basement with lots of ammo.
“Johnny is walking his shots a little high and to the right, give him another box of N.J. State-paid for .22lr ammo and have him hit the range again.”
Play our cards right, and their desire for ‘training’ could end up resulting a population that can shoot like US Marine Corps snipers… 🙂
“Well regulated” in the 18th century meant trained in the close order drill that was absolutely necessary for battlefield success in the 18th century. Remember reading about VonStuben drilling the troops at Valley Forge? Close order drill requires that not only the rank and file know the commands and how to perform them, but the NCOs and officers also have to know them and in what circumstances to use which formation. If you want to see an example of 18th century close order drill, some summer evening watch the Sunset Parade put on by the Marines of the Marine Barracks at Eighth and Eye Streets in Washington DC. You will see what “well regulated” is. “Squads, right front on to line” is the command to bring a platoon from marching in a column to marching on line, four ranks deep in order to present the most efficient firing pattern with 18th century muzzle loading muskets.
According to Webster’s dictionary 1828, well regulated means subject to regulations.
This redefining of words and concepts is tragically hilarious.
This is akin to DeSantis claiming that slaves learn valuable skills that they would benefit from.
And where are these training and qualification facilities? The fact they don’t exist is not a bug but a feature.
Nonsense, common expressions of the time included “well regulated mind”, “well regulated appetite”, and “well regulated clock”. So minds, appetites for food and clock were all up for government regulation?!
“REG’ULATED, participle passive Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.”
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Regulated
“subjected to rules or restrictions”
Yes, the Militia is subject to rules and restrictions, and under the Constitution is subject to the discipline imposed by Congress.
So we are to believe that you forked out $62 plus shipping costs for the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary which just happened to have a definition for two different words “well regulated” together? Funny how every time I try to look up two different words used together I can only find them separately in any number of different dictionaries I have left over from my days of court reporting when I spent lots of time researching obscure and arcane words. And it only happens to have one meaning? Meanings of words do change. For example social intercourse used to mean having a lively discussion with a group of people. Not sure about today’s numerous interpretations of those two words but I don’t think any of them have discussion as the definition. So, Mindless, I call bogus on your 1828 Webster’s definition.
“So we are to believe that you forked out $62 plus shipping costs for the 1828 edition of Webster’s Dictionary“
No, if you knew anything about actually conducting research you would know that Webster’s 1828 dictionary is available online.
“Meanings of words do change“
Yes, that’s why we consult a dictionary from 1828 which is contemporaneous with the early American government.
“I call bogus on your 1828 Webster’s definition“
Just another unsupported claim, par for the course with conservatives.
https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Regulated
“We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.
“It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.
“This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.
“This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.”” — https://bearingarms.com/bobowens-bearingarms/2014/06/24/well-regulated-n19250
Liar69er always quotes the 1828 dictionary to define terms in common use in the 1700s.
Also — dictionaries define individual words, not phrases. The phrase “well-regulated” is NOT in the 1828 dictionary.
Dragging that dead horse out again, miner? Asked and answered. They didn’t use Webster’s 1828 dictionary at the time of the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, since it wasn’t in existence yet. They used one of Johnson’s, and they’re online too.
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=regulate
Thanks for joining in Nero!
From your dictionary link:
“To RE’GULATE. v.a. [regula, Lat.]
1. To adjust by rule or method.
Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication.
Locke.
2. To direct.
Regulate the patient in his manner of living.
Wiseman.
Ev’n goddesses are women; and no wife
Has pow’r to regulate her husband’s life.
Dryden.”
Nothing about training, or clocks.
Miner49er,
Okay, how about well-regulated power supplies (which obviously did not exist 150+ years ago) or well-regulated clocks (which did exist 150+ years ago)? A well-regulated [fill in the blank] means that [fill in the blank] works well with precision, accuracy, and predictability–and thus is effective and useful. Therefore “well regulated” does not mean that [fill in the blank] is subject to government rules.
Thus if we apply “well regulated” to a militia, a well regulated militia means a militia which is useful, effective, and functions well. Clearly, a militia without firearms is useless and ineffective, which means that a militia must have firearms to be useful and effective. And in the obvious overarching context of the founding era (where the Framers just ousted the British government which had become hostile to The People of the colonies), the only rational interpretation is that The People must have the unfettered ability to form an effective and useful militia in case their future government ever becomes hostile to The People. And since a government which is hostile to The People will not allow The People to have firearms, we conclude that the Second Amendment denies government any authority to define firearm ownership conditions for The People.
All I did above is apply the simple meaning of “well regulated” within the context of the era, document, and intended audience (The People). Therefore “well regulated” does not empower government to define rules for firearm ownership.
Miner, so you have abandoned your misplaced reliance on this dead horse? Perhaps we are making progress. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
“Okay, how about well-regulated power supplies (which obviously did not exist 150+ years ago)”
Yes, I do like a well regulated power supply, unless we’re talking about vacuum tube guitar amplifiers where you want the B+ power supply to sag so you get that great even harmonic distortion and power compression for that full, ritch tone.
But in the context of the second amendment, we’re talking governance so we should look to definitions that comport with the needs of the body politic.
I love it when the dumb think they are the smartest ones in the room. Why do you keep citing a dictionary that came out 41 years after the Constitution was written? Why do you not cite any dictionary before the founding, when the adjective “well-regulated” meant nothing more than to be well-trained and disciplined. It does not mean set of requirements issued by a government agency, it does not mean anything but normal everyday people should know WTF they’re doing with a firearm. How do we know this? We look to what was written and said at the time.
George Washington told Congress in his first annual address in 1790: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”
A Dictionary of the English language, Samuel Johnson (1755) – Regulate: To adjust by rule or method.
An Universal Etymological English Dictionary, Nathan Bailey (1755) – Regulate: To set in order, to govern, direct or guide.
Why don’t you cite the Va. Declaration of Rights? “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state….”
All the above is online and free for you to look up, which you refuse to do. There are things called libraries, too. What’s more, you don’t even define the word in your stupid comment. Regulate = subject to regulations? Gee, thanks for that insight. What are regulations? You don’t bother to say. This is like me calling you a dipshit and you asking what does that mean, and I tell you it means you are subject to dipshittery. Oh, OK.
How lazy are you?
Rhetorical question.
This isn’t hard, but you go out of your way to tell the world you are:
1.) Not up to speed on anything other than what leftist tool told you to say, because no one with a modicum of common sense talking about the definitions of words used in the Constitution will cite a dictionary that came out when most Founding Fathers were dead.
2.) Purposefully misleading in your comments.
3.) Subject to dipshittery*
*See definition above.
“Why do you not cite any dictionary before the founding, when the adjective “well-regulated” meant nothing more than to be well-trained and disciplined“
That is incorrect, regulated means “adjusted by rule”
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=regulate
Liar69er, what is the definition of “well-regulated” in your 1828 dictionary?
I’m laughing. Oh boy.
Hey idiot, I quoted that definition <—- see this?
It was in my comment that you just demonstrated that you didn't read. It's funny how you are now going back to tell everyone you suddenly know about this dictionary that you never knew about before.
I'll let someone else waste their time with your incompetence. I usually ignore your crap. Shame on me this time.
Miner49er – since my comment is in moderation limbo, I will try again.
No, it means: “To adjust by rule or method.” You see, I quoted the full definition in the my comment you didn’t bother to read. This is after I told you weeks ago about this dictionary you never heard of, which all of a sudden you are spamming in everyone’s comments now like you carry it in your pocket 24/7.
To RE’GULATE. v.a. [regula, Lat.]
1. To adjust by rule or method.
Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication.
Minerva: It’s word for word from YOUR source, to adjust by rule “OR METHOD”… Why did YOU find it necessary to EDIT even THAT simple definition? You proved nothing except that you are a left-wing progressive hack parroting the garbage they regurgitate daily on the “FAKE NEWS” DNC run cable networks but, we already knew that… Facts are tough sometimes, so you just chop them up spin them into the lie that fits YOUR agenda and throw them at the wall to see what sticks… Another fail…
@Miner49er
There’s that old debunked ‘well regulated’ anti-gun argument again
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
SCOTUS case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Court’s ruling said, “The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose [a REASON FOR], BUT DOES NOT LIMIT or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause.”
The “prefatory clause” = “A well regulated Militia”, (,being necessary to the security of a free State,)
The “operative clause” = “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The prefatory clause that mentions a “well-regulated militia” doesn’t limit the individual right expressed in the operative clause. Again, the Supreme Court has said this explicitly. The First and Fourth Amendments, which also refer to “the right of the people,” have several clauses, but one clause does not somehow nullify other clauses.
At the time of the second amendment codification “well regulated” only meant
When the Founders wrote “well regulated,” they weren’t referring to a militia regulated by the government. “Well regulated” at the time the second amendment was codified meant effective OR competent, it did not mean your today’s dictionary definition.
Each law abiding person that can successfully employ DGU against a threat of serious bodily harm is “effective OR competent”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QSxYtGYDNs
“Why don’t you cite the Va. Declaration of Rights? “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state….”
That quotation actually supports my position.
You see two separate mentions, a ‘well regulated’ militia that is ‘trained’ to arms.
If, as most here claim, well regulated means well trained, then you’re asserting that the author was a careless writer and the statement contains a redundancy:
‘A well-trained militia, composed of people trained to arms’
No, the initial ‘well regulated’ indicates a militia, governed by rules promulgated by the governing body, that has been trained to arms.
“… That a militia which is useful, effective, and functions well, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state….”
Works well.
This is akin to DeSantis claiming that slaves learn valuable skills that they would benefit from.
Keep regurgitating the DeSantis lie clown boy… Here is a novel idea, how about you taking a few minutes to actually read the part of the act that you are improperly referencing AND maybe even check the backgrounds of those evil Black “White Supremacist” scholars that assisted in writing it… Hmmmmmm, never mind, you most likely would not understand all the big words and come away even more confused than you already are so, probably best you just stay with your favorite left wing, “progressive” ball sac licking, fake news source and keep sounding like a moron by repeating their lies… Hint, it doesn’t even contain the words that you (and CNN, MSDNC, ABC, CBS, ETC) used in your fake news “quote”…
You mean like the left has redefined ‘assault rifle’ to mean something it never did?
The AR15 is not and never has been an assault rifle.
Or maybe redefining America as a democracy when it’s actually a republic?
Idiot49r – list the skills that an African tribal savage, living in the African jungle/savanna/etc, had that would be of use in the civilized world:
– before his “brothers”/mohammadan trader put him on a ship.
(protesting, community organizing, picketing, looting, rapping/hiphopping, various drug tasks, illegitimate screwing/aborting are not admissible).
“Idiot49r – list the skills that an African tribal savage, living in the African jungle/savanna/etc“
Really? That’s amazingly easy.
Blacksmithing
Astronomer
Mathematician
Stonemason
Farming
Animal husbandry
Carpentry
So many folks forget that Africa was the first civilized continent, building immense stone monuments that encode amazingly accurate terrestrial and celestial measurements, built while northern Europeans were still huddled around fires wearing animal skins.
I’m sorry I couldn’t get back to you guys sooner on some of this, I’ve been laughing so hard just reading the news wire.
I just saw where, in addition to $56million in legal fees, Donald Trump‘s PAC shelled out $108K for Melania‘s fridge stylus and listed him on their FEC filing as ‘strategy consultant’.
That’s actually down from the year before, I guess Melania is economizing her grift:
“Trump political PAC paid Melania’s hair stylist at least $132K for ‘strategy consulting’: report
Herve Pierre Braillard has also made dresses and hats for Melania in the past
By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News”
And have any of you folks seen the Trump family’s amazing line of NFT merchandise? Beautiful images of the Trump family, colorful and artistic renditions of their participation in great moments in American history. I had no idea Donald Trump was an astronaut…
Up until now, I thought George Santos was the first American to set foot on the Moon.
Y’all keep those cards and letters coming, as long as Donald Trump is blowing the money on legal fees and Melania‘s hairdo, they’ll have less money for their bullshit election ads. Huzzah!
“an African tribal savage“
Now there’s some naked hard-core racism, how unsurprising from this group.
Yep, civilizations in Africa knew the Earth was a globe, knew the approximate circumference and understood the orbital movements around the sun long before our European ancestors had stopped picking lice and eating them by the campfire.
The Africans knew we live on a globe that orbits the sun, over 5000 years ago, while the European Christians were burning people at the stake if they dared to suggest the Earth was anything but flat.
You savage… ha ha
Well trained in the close order drill necessary to obtain success on the 18th century battlefield. Remember VonStuben drilling the troops at Valley Forge? Not only do the rank and file have to know close order drill, the NCOs and officers must also know close order drill in order to maintain orderly ranks and files during actual battle. If you want to see 18th century close order drill, watch the Sunset Parade some summer evening at the Marine Barracks at Eighth and Eye streets in Washington D.C.
“NCOs and officers must also know close order drill in order to maintain orderly ranks and files during actual battle“
Completely inaccurate my ‘sinister’ friend, American soldiers rarely fought in orderly ranks.
In fact, the English soldiers often complained that the Americans ‘fought like Indians’.
And the Jarhead barracks is at ‘8th & I Street’.
Au contraire, Liar69er.
“Warfare in the Eighteenth Century was a comparatively simple matter, once the battle was joined. Combat was at close range, massed-fire melee, where rapidity of firing was of primary importance. Accuracy was little more than firing faster than the opposing line. Much of the Regulations dealt with the manual of arms and firing drills. But battle was close-order drill, and speed of firing could only be obtained by drilling men in the handling of their firearms until the motions of loading and firing were mechanical. Firing was done in eight counts and fifteen motions.
Fire! One Motion.
Half-Cock — Firelock! One Motion.
Handle — Cartridge! One Motion.
Prime! One Motion.
Shut — Pan! One Motion.
Charge with Cartridge! Two motions.
Draw — Rammer! Two motions.
Ram down — Cartridge! One Motion.
Return — Rammer! Two motions.
“Complicated as they seem, the new firing regulations were much simpler than those used by foreign armies and they speeded up firing considerably. The bulk of the fighting in the Revolutionary War was a stand up and slug match. The winning side was the one that could get in a good first volley, take a return fire and re-load faster than its foes. Once the individual could handle himself and his musket he was placed in groups of three, then in groups of twelve, and taught to wheel, to dress to the right and to the left. Alignment and dressing the ranks was emphasized but only because proper alignment was necessary for smooth firing.” — https://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/served/steuben.html
Well it makes since that a “BRITISH SUBJECT” doesn’t know the “FULL HISTORY” of the American War for Independence!!
HE/SHE/IT/THEM is fed the “BRITISH PROPAGANDA”!!!!
false Miner49er
in the revolutionary war American soldiers fought in orderly ranks, at the beginning of the battle until the point where, sometimes, the two sides either closed or charged and became in close hand-to-hand combat distances.
“In fact, the English soldiers often complained that the Americans ‘fought like Indians’.”
What the English soldiers were referencing was the civilian patriots not part of the army but rather the ‘unorganized militia’ that frequently fought alongside the standing American army.
Once again Miner49er, learn what ‘context’ means.
“Where we see more traditional examples of guerrilla warfare was in the South. Nearly all of the big-name battles of the American Revolution happened in the North. However, about 80% of the total Revolution was fought in the South, where the Continental army was less active. Down here, local militias carried the brunt of the fighting, and they did so using guerrilla tactics. This is why there aren’t many major battles to talk about from 1780 to 1782 in the American Revolution. The British decided to concentrate their efforts on the South and work their way north. Southern militias used the dense foliage, marshes, and uneven terrain of the South to their advantage. Did they strike any major blows to the British this way? No, but they did extend the war by years. The British march through the South turned out to be expensive and exhaustive, which is exactly what guerrilla warfare is meant to do.“
“Lesson Summary
When fighting the American Revolution, American forces often relied on non-traditional tactics, or guerrilla warfare. While guerrilla warfare did not win the Revolution, it did extend the war and slow British advances, thereby increasing the cost Britain had to sink into the conflict. In the North, the Continental Army fought traditional battles but also implemented guerrilla tactics to rout or confuse the British. In the South, local militias relied heavily on guerrilla tactics, which is why there were so few major battles in this part of the country, but
also why 80% of the war was fought down here. American merchants also
became privateers, legal pirates who stole from British merchants and did some serious damage to the British economy. Guerrilla warfare may not always be enough to defeat an opponent, but in the American Revolution it was enough to slow down the British heavyweight champion until an American contender was ready to enter the ring.“
https://www.cusd80.com/cms/lib/AZ01001175/Centricity/Domain/735/AmRevTableRotations.pdf
Francis Marion
Nickname(s) The Swamp Fox
Born c. 1732
Berkeley County, Province of South Carolina, British America
Died February 27, 1795
(aged c. 63)
Berkeley County, South Carolina, U.S.
Buried St. Stephen, South Carolina
Allegiance Great Britain
United States
Service/branch South Carolina Militia
Continental Army
Years of service 1757–1782
Rank Lieutenant colonel Continental Army
Brigadier General South Carolina Militia
Battles/wars French and Indian War
American Revolutionary War
Brigadier General Francis Marion (c. 1732 – February 27, 1795), also known as the “Swamp Fox”, was an American military officer, planter, and politician who served during the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War. During the American Revolution, Marion supported the Patriot cause and enlisted in the Continental Army, fighting against British forces in the Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War from 1780 to 1781.
Though he never commanded a field army or served as a commander in a major engagement, Marion’s use of irregular warfare against the British has led him to be considered one of the fathers of guerrilla and maneuver warfare, and his tactics form a part of the modern-day military doctrine of the U.S. Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment.
Don’t ferget nuthin’
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gyy_f2y0Thc&pp=ygUIU3dhbXBmb3g%3D
@miner
No one is questioning that “regulated” means subject to rules or even restrictions.
That is infact what the 4 rules of gun safety is about. That is also what Lt. Col. Coopers ready conditions are about. It is why we spend time at the range and seek structured training when possible. Those rules and restrictions are trigger control, proper grip, recoil control, and aiming technique. It is learning bench rest, off hand, and prone.
There absolutely ARE rules and restrictions that regulate the world of guns. It’s the reason a purpose made holster is used with a sturdy gun belt when carrying.
We accept these any others as part of what it means to be a responsible gun owner.
These are self-imposed rules. NOT government enforced.
Thank you for your well reasoned reply!
“These are self-imposed rules. NOT government enforced“
Not when these rules (discipline) are imposed by the United States Congress under the United States Constitution as set forth in the Militia Clause:
“Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,“
“kneeling” is well nigh impossible for those with the greatest need to carry a gun for protection
Although I disagree that that any training certification should be required to exercise your basic civil rights (such as the right to keep and bear arms), stating these standards are a “high bar” for training is disingenuous. Go ahead and read them. I’ve seen brand new shooters, people who got their pistols that same day, pass these standards.
“Although I disagree that that any training certification should be required to exercise your basic civil rights…”
Yeah, but…
How many times have heard things like “I thought it was unloaded because the magazine was out”, and someone was killed?
Teach all the real little kids not to touch guns, and by high school kids how to safely handle them. Call it “Universal Gun Safety Training” just to piss off the ‘Mad Mommies’… 🙂
Wasn’t that what the cop said who shot himself in front of the class he was teaching gun safety to?
Once upon a time, back when San Francisco did not issue CCWs, its web site stated that any applicant had to qualify as the same standards as rookie cops on the SFPD range with an SFPD range officer (paid for by the applicant). The only person who ever qualified was Dianne Feinstein. (She of course gave up her .38 snubbie decades ago.)
She has publicly denied ever having a permit or submitting to the process for one. I recall watching her say this during a televised (gun control) committee hearing many years ago when a complainant at the room’s microphone mentioned her alleged hypocrisy.
I say make them rue the day they insisted on training, as it will result in citizens that can shoot like Kirsten Joy Weiss… 🙂
I’m not sure this will be seen as any different from the literacy tests that were used to suppress Black voting in the Jim Crow south. CCW licensees are not police officers. Limitations on Constitutional rights are very limited and they have to have a direct relevance to that right.
R: “That’s what happens when totalitarian regimes desperately fight to stay in complete control.”
That’s what happens when The History of Gun Control is kept out of sight and out of mind. Never mind catering to Gun Control by trying to explain well regulated, shall not be infringed, etc. Time for Gun Control zealots to be forced to explain the Racism and Genocide inherent with Gun Control…To make Gun Control zealots answer questions under oath would set a precedent that is way past due don’t you think LKB?
I mean there must be something they fear because the darling of Gun Control david hoggwash was a no show to speak with Colion Noir…
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YN-8OYfBnD4&feature=share
BREAKING NEWS: Here Comes a NEW ATF Proposed Rule…The Next Attack on 2A!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZcKi6HiI-Q
wonder how this new rule will impact the classIII market…where making a huge profit is a given….
And once again miner is proving himself to be a fascist. “You can have rights. But you have to have permission to exercise them.” Pretty much sums up his entire argument.
“Platkin” eh
?
Every time, every damn time!
Peoples Rep of NJ is reportedly down by one extremist antigun activist/agitator. The affirmative action Lt Governor of NJ checked out yesterday.
Dan Zimmerman wrote this for TTTAG back on July 2, 2017.
The Second Amendment: A Primer
https://dev.thetruthaboutguns.com/second-amendment-primer/
From the linked article:
“James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789”
If you folks want to maintain that ‘well regulated’ means well trained, then you must accept that James Madison was an incompetent writer.
You are suggesting that he carelessly wrote a redundancy:
‘A well trained militia of people trained to arms.’
No, ‘well regulated’ spoke to the governance of the militia, and then James Madison included an additional requirement, that of ‘training’ for those members of the militia.
“Well regulated” meant “well functioning” in the parlance of the time. This also means “well supplied”.
A prerequisite for a citizen militia requires two things; citizens and arms kept and borne by those citizens.
The farmers of this country fought a war of independence with little training. If the founders did not require training to fight a war, why would they have required training to simply keep and bear arms?
The meaning of the phrase “well-regulated” in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Practically all modern references to the term “well-regulated” refer to activities that are
regulated by law, such as the airline industry, the fur industry, or the gambling “industry”.
The contrast with writings from the 19th century was quite pronounced. Practically all the
earlier references I could find had quite a different meaning, inconsistent with that
interpretation. The clear meaning of the term in earlier texts was closer to “properly
operating” or “in its ideal state”.
This is not too surprising, given that the emphasis of the earlier era was on individual
responsibility, industry, and proper behavior being the foundation of a prosperous and
orderly society, vs. our present indulgence in government regulation as a source of social
good. — https://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf
A training requirement to exercise your second amendment rights is as constitutional as a history exam requirement to exercise your right to vote. Protected rights are not subject to arbitrary government requirements.
Comments are closed.